NY activist judges allow same sex marriage

[Avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_2

These extremists are really pushing the envelope with this action. The people are not going to be happy.

 

[archangel]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_2

These extremists are really pushing the envelope with this action. The people are not going to be happy.

I'm with ya on this one..amazing how shallow this country has become...sex has taken front page...geez!

 

[manu1959]

i am in a same sex marriage...same sex...same women ...every day...i am really starting to quesiton the intelligence of the gay community

 

[5stringJeff]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_2

These extremists are really pushing the envelope with this action. The people are not going to be happy.

Especially interesting that the judicial branch is declaring it to be a law. Who gave judges the power to pass laws? No constitution I've ever seen.

 

[Johnney]

"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law," said Susan Sommer, a Lambda Legal Defense Fund lawyer who presented the case for five couples who brought the lawsuit. "Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."

whatever, just something else they want us to bend over backwards for them on. getting sickening, well more sickening anyway. thery are making a mockery of marriage

 

[CivilLiberty]

Especially interesting that the judicial branch is declaring it to be a law. Who gave judges the power to pass laws? No constitution I've ever seen.

The judge is not declaring a new law - he is stating that a certain law is not legal or valid under a certain (state) constitution.


Just out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about interracial marriages?


A

 

[theim]

The judge is not declaring a new law - he is stating that a certain law is not legal or valid under a certain (state) constitution.


Just out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about interracial marriages?


A

perfectly fine, if you wanna know.

 

[Avatar4321]

The judge is not declaring a new law - he is stating that a certain law is not legal or valid under a certain (state) constitution.


Just out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about interracial marriages?


A

Why do you always insist on comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage? its an insult to reason and common decency.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Why do you always insist on comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage? its an insult to reason and common decency.

Calm down. First of all I wasn't making ANY comparison - you implied it. I only asked how you guys felt.


Here's why: Decades ago, interracial marriages were illegal in many states. In fact, I believe that Alabama still has such a law. However these laws were found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS (See: Loving vs Virginia).

At the time, interracial marriages were considered "an abomination to god", and in fact A Virginia judge ruled that "God did not intend for the races to mix."


Today, decades later, people are substantially more open to interracial marriage. The only change was the perception over time.


Here's my "Statement" on marriage:

------
Marriage as a holy, religion ceremony, belongs in the church, to be defined as appropriate by each individual religious body according to the dictates of their beliefs.

The government should have no role in the "sanctity" of these religious bondings.

However, in our modern society, there are logistical and legal ramifications relating to couples, particularly those that are raising families. To mitigate the "legality" (not "sanctity") of a couple/family, here the government can issue/oversee the legal aspects of the "contract."

For the purposes of discussion, one could call the "legal" portion the "civil union", keeping the term "marriage" to apply only to any particular religion.

With the understanding that legal means be available to all person in a non discriminatory manner, then any couple of any composition could have access to the legal civil union contract for forming a legal pair bond.

But "marriage" as a religious institution should free itself from the bounds of governmental interference, and exist only as the religious sanctity observed by the couple and their god.

---


fire away


Andy

 

[Gem]

Andy said:

Calm down. First of all I wasn't making ANY comparison

A bit of intellection honesty please, Andy. Everyone in the board knew exactly where you were taking the statement...trying to deny it and then following it up with a diatribe of JUST THAT, a comparison between the two...just makes you foolish.

If you want to have the conversation, have it...but don't ask a leading question and then fake surprise when someone takes you up on it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_2

These extremists are really pushing the envelope with this action. The people are not going to be happy.

<blockquote>Amendment 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. <b>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws</b>.</blockquote>

Nothing extreme about it, unless you consider the Constitution to be an extremist document. It applies to all, or it applies to none. Get over it.

 

[manu1959]

Calm down. First of all I wasn't making ANY comparison - you implied it. I only asked how you guys felt.


Here's why: Decades ago, interracial marriages were illegal in many states. In fact, I believe that Alabama still has such a law. However these laws were found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS (See: Loving vs Virginia).

At the time, interracial marriages were considered "an abomination to god", and in fact A Virginia judge ruled that "God did not intend for the races to mix."


Today, decades later, people are substantially more open to interracial marriage. The only change was the perception over time.


Here's my "Statement" on marriage:

------
Marriage as a holy, religion ceremony, belongs in the church, to be defined as appropriate by each individual religious body according to the dictates of their beliefs.

The government should have no role in the "sanctity" of these religious bondings.

However, in our modern society, there are logistical and legal ramifications relating to couples, particularly those that are raising families. To mitigate the "legality" (not "sanctity") of a couple/family, here the government can issue/oversee the legal aspects of the "contract."

For the purposes of discussion, one could call the "legal" portion the "civil union", keeping the term "marriage" to apply only to any particular religion.

With the understanding that legal means be available to all person in a non discriminatory manner, then any couple of any composition could have access to the legal civil union contract for forming a legal pair bond.

But "marriage" as a religious institution should free itself from the bounds of governmental interference, and exist only as the religious sanctity observed by the couple and their god.

---


fire away


Andy

are you saying secularuist/ non religious people can't get married then? what about civil services? so only holy marigaes in a church count?

 

[manu1959]

<blockquote>Amendment 14

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. <b>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws</b>.</blockquote>

Nothing extreme about it, unless you consider the Constitution to be an extremist document. It applies to all, or it applies to none. Get over it.

context dude context

 

[Bullypulpit]

The judge is not declaring a new law - he is stating that a certain law is not legal or valid under a certain (state) constitution.


Just out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about interracial marriages?


A

Nice point. The arguments posited here, and elsewhere, are little different from the arguments supporting the Jim Crowe era's anti-miscegenation laws. Only the target is different.

 

[Bullypulpit]

context dude context

Yeah, it's contextual and relevant.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Why do you always insist on comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage? its an insult to reason and common decency.

Only to your lack of reason and decency.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Andy said:

A bit of intellection honesty please, Andy. Everyone in the board knew exactly where you were taking the statement...trying to deny it and then following it up with a diatribe of JUST THAT, a comparison between the two..

Okay then, let's make a comparison.


50 years ago, people supported Anti-Miscegenation laws using the statements:

1) They are against the Bible.
2) They are unnatural.
3) They go against our history and our culture.
4) They are bad for children.

And the motivation of these laws was steeped in bigotry.

These same statements are being used today relating to same sex pair bonds.

The 14th amendment overruled state Anti-Miscegenation laws, and it's possible that the SCOTUS will do the same with laws prohibiting same sex unions using the same legal framework.

Assuming this happens in the next few years, in 50 years they will be accepted as interracial marriages are now today.

Bigotry is a perceptual thought pattern that changes readily over time.



Regards


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

are you saying secularuist/ non religious people can't get married then? what about civil services? so only holy marigaes in a church count?

Read my statement again. I clearly point out that all are entitled to the same legal contract of union.

A

 

[Annie]

Okay then, let's make a comparison.


50 years ago, people supported Anti-Miscegenation laws using the statements:

1) They are against the Bible.
2) They are unnatural.
3) They go against our history and our culture.
4) They are bad for children.

And the motivation of these laws was steeped in bigotry.

These same statements are being used today relating to same sex pair bonds.

The 14th amendment overruled state Anti-Miscegenation laws, and it's possible that the SCOTUS will do the same with laws prohibiting same sex unions using the same legal framework.

Assuming this happens in the next few years, in 50 years they will be accepted as interracial marriages are now today.

Bigotry is a perceptual thought pattern that changes readily over time.



Regards


Andy

But if I understood your earlier post, you wish to overturn the 14th amendment?

 

[Gem]

Andy,

You have no argument from me on the conversation, just your chosen method of introduction. I feel that eventually the language of government will be changed to recognize civil unions and marriage will reside solely in the language of religion and every church/synagogue/mosque/etc. will be able to define marriage in whatever way their reading and interpretation of their holy texts dictates.